Legal Opinion
Biedler v. Hurst
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 3, 1958No. Civ. A. No. 20185PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, District Judge.
1. Plaintiff has a new theory for recovery. He wants to amend his complaint. Rule 15 of The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., says he should. Also Moore1 agrees. F.R. 15 (c) abolishes any defense of intervening statute of limitations between amendments to pleadings.2 Moreover, it is valid for a litigant to change his theory of recovery.3 Delay in amendment hardly works prejudice.3a
2. The proposed amendments do not involve validity of the asserted claim. Here the proposed amendment shows, it is said, an agreement involving an usurious demand. Courts have…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Emich Motors Corporation and U. S. Acceptance Corporation v. General Motors Corporation and General Motors Acceptance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1956
- Stepp v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1953
- Copeland Motor Co. v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1952
- Heay v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
- Hirshhorn v. Mine Safety Appliances Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1951
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Beaudoin v. TaylorWyoming Supreme Court · 1972
- Cunningham v. JaffeDistrict Court, W.D. South Carolina · 1965